The furor of the totmomocalypse is dying down as almost everybody looks for the next imperiled cute white child or sexually threatening suspect. And yet . . . there are other shoes to drop. There always are.
At trial, the government offered evidence that somebody used the Anthony computer to search for "chloroform" 84 times. That was perhaps the prosecution's strongest piece of evidence (if not its only piece of evidence) that Casey Anthony committed a premeditated act of murder.
As it turns out, the figure was bogus, based on the software error. The real number was one. The prosecution knew it was bogus, and concealed it:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office had used the software to validate its finding that Ms. Anthony had searched for information about chloroform 84 times, a conclusion that Mr. Bradley says turned out to be wrong. Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police.
Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense.
“I gave the police everything they needed to present a new report,” Mr. Bradley said. “I did the work myself and copied out the entire database in a spreadsheet to make sure there was no issue of accessibility to the data.”
Mr. Bradley, chief executive of Siquest, a Canadian company, said he even volunteered to fly to Orlando at his own expense to show them the findings.
If Mr. Bradley is telling the truth — if he did discover that the "84 searches" claim was false, and notified the prosecution that the actual number was one — then the prosecution committed grave misconduct. First, it committed misconduct by not disclosing that exculpatory fact to the defense. Second, it committed misconduct by not correcting the mistaken testimony on its own initiative. A prosecutor's failure to correct known false testimony is a due process violation.
What do you suppose that Nancy Grace, who has a judicially-recognized habit of suppressing exculpatory evidence, will say to that? I'm not sure — but it will involve a snarl, I bet.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Free Speech Triumphant Or Free Speech In Retreat? - June 21st, 2017
- The Power To Generate Crimes Rather Than Merely Investigate Them - June 19th, 2017
- Free Speech, The Goose, And The Gander - June 17th, 2017
- Free Speech Tropes In The LA Times - June 8th, 2017
- I write letters - June 1st, 2017